[Bug 794923] Review Request: stax-utils - StAX utility classes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794923

Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #5 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Things mostly look sane to me.  Here are the issues I ran across:

* While the packages include docs/COPYRIGHT.TXT, they should also include
LICENSE.

* Since this is a pre/post-release snapshot the Release field needs to contain
the usual svn snapshot info.  If the date that would normally go there is the
same as the Version info then I would argue that putting that date in the
Release field is redundant and unnecessary.  That should probably go by FPC,
though.

* lib/*/jsr173*.jar do not appear to have licenses that allow redistribution. 
If this is correct then you have to build sanitized source tarballs that don't
include those files.  :-(

* Consider using cp's -p switch in the %install section.

* The purpose of %{name}-build-fixes.patch is rather obvious, but the
guidelines recommend adding descriptive commentary about it to the spec file.

* Tests aren't getting run.  Is it feasible to do so?

* (nitpick) The Group, URL, and BuildRequires: jpackage-utils lines have
trailing spaces.

Review of stax-utils-20110309-1:

Mandatory review guidelines:
ok - rpmlint output:
     stax-utils.src: W: invalid-url Source0: stax-utils-20110309.tar.xz
     3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ok - License is acceptable (BSD)
ok - License field in spec is correct
NO - License files included in package %docs if included in source package
     docs/COPYRIGHT.TXT is included, but LICENSE is not.
ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
-- - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
     Tarball built directly from upstream svn
ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
ok - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
ok - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary
-- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
-- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
ok - No bundled libs
-- - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
ok - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Package contains permissible code or content
ok - Large docs go in -doc subpackage
ok - %doc files not required at runtime
-- - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
-- - Development files go in -devel package
-- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
ok - No .la files
-- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
ok - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
ok - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
-- - Query upstream about including license files
no - Translations of description, summary
ok - Builds in mock
ok - Builds on all arches
     (Standard no-java-on-epel-ppc disclaimer)
-- - Scriptlets are sane
-- - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible
-- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible
ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
-- - Include man pages if available

Naming guidelines:
ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+
ok - Package names are sane
ok - No naming conflicts
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - Version is sane
     Upstream also uses dates for versions.
ok - Version does not contain ~
NO - Release is sane
     Since this is a svn snapshot the Release field needs to include the
     usual pre- or post-release info.  If the date that would normally go
     there is the same as the Version then I would argue that putting
     that date here is redundant and unnecessary.  That should probably
     be run by FPC to be sure, though.
ok - %dist tag
ok - Case used only when necessary
-- - Renaming handled correctly

Packaging guidelines:
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - No kmods
no - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep
NO - Sources contain only redistributable code or content
     lib/*/jsr173*.jar are not redistributable
ok - Spec format is sane
     Group, URL, and BuildRequires: jpackage utils have trailing spaces.
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target
ok - No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17
-- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
ok - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17
ok - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local
ok - Changelog in prescribed format
ok - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags
ok - Summary does not end in a period
-- - Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6
-- - Correct %clean section on < EL6
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc
ok - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x)
-- - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc
-- - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
-- - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs
-- - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
-- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
ok - No static executables
-- - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
-- - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config
-- - No config files under /usr
-- - Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir
-- - .desktop files are sane
ok - Spec uses macros consistently
ok - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate
ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
-- - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work
-- - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time
ok - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir
ok - No software collections (scl)
ok - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs
-- - %global, not %define
-- - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it
-- - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel
no - File ops preserve timestamps
     Consider using cp's -p switch in the %install section.
-- - Parallel make
ok - No Requires(pre,post) notation
-- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
-- - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www
-- - Conflicts are justified
ok - One project per package
ok - No bundled fonts
no - Patches have appropriate commentary
     %{name}-build-fixes.patch is obvious, but commentary is recommended.
no - Available test suites executed in %check
-- - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15

Java guidelines:
ok - Javadocs go in javadoc subpackage
-- - Prefer split JARs over monolithic
ok - JAR file names correct
ok - JAR files go in %{_javadir} or %{_javadir}-$version
-- - Multiple JAR files go in a %{name} subdirectory
ok - Javadocs go in unversioned %{_javadocdir}/%{name}
ok - javadoc subpackage is noarch on > EL5
ok - BuildRequires java-devel, jpackage-utils
ok - Requires java, jpackage-utils
-- - Dependencies on java/java-devel >= 1.6.0 add epoch 1
-- - Package requiring maven2 Requires jpackage-utils for post and postun
-- - Package requiring maven contains correct maven-specific code in spec
-- - Wrapper script in %{_bindir}
-- - GCJ AOT bits follow GCJ guidelines
ok - No devel package
ok - pom.xml files, if any, installed with %add_maven_depmap
-- - JNI shared objects, JARs that require them go in %{_libdir}/%{name}
-- - Calls to System.loadLibrary replaced w/ System.load w/ full .so path
ok - Bundled JAR files not included or used for build
     I did a test build that removed the bundled jars, which succeeded.
ok - No Javadoc %post/%ghost
ok - No class-path elements in JAR manifests

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]